Assertive Discipline: More than Names on the Board and Marbles in a JarAuthor(s): Lee CanterReviewed work(s):Source: The Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 71, No. 1 (Sep., 1989), pp. 57-61Published by: Phi Delta Kappa InternationalStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20404058 .Accessed: 17/04/2012 05:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Phi Delta Kappa International is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The PhiDelta Kappan.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pdkihttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20404058?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Assertive Discipline

More Than Names on the

Board and Marbles in a Jar

Mr. Canter explains the background of the program and addresses some of the issues that are frequently raised about Assertive F

Discipline.

.~~~~~~~~ . . . . . . ,' . . . . . . . . . .

BY LEE CANTER

A BOUT A YEAR ago I was on an airline flight, seated next to a university profes sor. When he found out that I had developed the

Assertive Discipline program, he said, "Oh, that's where all you do is write the kids' names on the board when they're bad and drop marbles in the jar when

they're good." The university professor's response

disturbed me. For some time rye been concerned about a small percentage of educators - this professor apparently among them - who have interpreted my program in a way that makes behavior

management sound simplistic. More im portant, rm concerned with their mis- : ; . 0 ; guided emphasis on providing only nega- ;:. : ; tive consequences when students misbe- ;-X !t,. ,i0.

LEE CANTER is president of Lee Canter .,-:: & Associates, Santa Monica, Calif He is the ei e.. author of many books on behavior manage- ~ ment and is the developer of the Assertive Dis-t.,.". cipline program.

Illustration by RobColvvnn S E P T E M BE R 1989 57

The key to

Assertive Discipline is catching

students being good - and letting

them know that

you like it.

have. The key to dealing effectively with student behavior is not negative - but positive - consequences. To clarify my views for Kappan readers, I would like to explain the background of the program and address some of the issues that are often raised about Assertive Discipline.

I developed the program about 14 years ago, when I first became aware that teachers were not trained to deal with stu dent behavior. Teachers were taught such concepts as "Don't smile until Christmas" or "If your curriculum is good enough, you will have no behavior problems." Those concepts were out of step with the reality of student behavior in the 1970s.

When I discovered this lack of train ing, I began to study how effective teach ers dealt with student behavior. I found that, above all, the master teachers were

assertive; that is, they taught students how to behave. They established clear rules for the classroom, they commu nicated those rules to the students, and they taught the students how to follow them. These effective teachers had also

mastered skills in positive reinforcement, and they praised every student at least once a day. Finally, when students chose to break the rules, these teachers used firm and consistent negative consequences - but only as a last resort.

It troubles me to find my work inter preted as suggesting that teachers need only provide negative consequences - check marks or demerits - when stu dents misbehave. That interpretation is wrong. The key to Assertive Discipline is catching students being good: recog nizing and supporting them when they behave appropriately and letting them know you like it, day in and day out.

THE DISCIPLINE PLAN

It is vital for classroom teachers to have a systematic discipline plan that explains exactly what will happen when students choose to misbehave. By telling the stu dents at the beginning of the school year what the consequences will be, teachers insure that all students know what to ex

pect in the classroom. Without a plan, teachers must choose an appropriate con sequence at the moment when a student

misbehaves. They must stop the lesson, talk to the misbehaving student, and do whatever else the situation requires, while 25 to 30 students look on. That is not an effective way to teach - or to deal with misbehavior.

Most important, without a plan teach ers tend to be inconsistent. One day they

may ignore students who are talking, yelling, or disrupting the class. The next day they may severely discipline students for the same behaviors. In addition, teachers may respond differently to stu dents from different socioeconomic, eth nic, or racial backgrounds.

An effective discipline plan is applied fairly to all students. Every student who

willfully disrupts the classroom and stops the teacher from teaching suffers the same consequence. And a written plan can be sent home to parents, who then know beforehand what the teacher's stan dards are and what will be done when students choose to misbehave. When a teacher calls a parent, there should be no surprises.

MISBEHAVIOR AND CONSEQUENCES

I suggest that a discipline plan include a maximum of five consequences for mis behavior, but teachers must choose con sequences with which they are comfort able. For example, the first time a stu dent breaks a rule, the student is warned. The second infraction brings a 10-minute timeout; the third infraction, a 15-minute timeout. The fourth time a student breaks a rule, the teacher calls the parents; the fifth time, the student goes to the prin cipal.

No teacher should have a plan that is not appropriate for his or her needs and that is not in the best interests of the stu dents. Most important, the consequences should never be psychologically or phys ically harmful to the students. Students should never be made to stand in front of the class as objects of ridicule or be degraded in any other way. Nor should

they be given consequences that are in appropriate for their grade levels. I also feel strongly that corporal punishment should never be administered. There are

more effective ways of dealing with stu dents than hitting them.

Names and checks on the board are sometimes said to be essential to an As sertive Discipline program, but they are not. I originally suggested this particu lar practice because I had seen teachers interrupt their lessons to make such nega tive comments to misbehaving students as, "You talked out again. I've had it.

You're impossible. That's 20 minutes af ter school." I wanted to eliminate the need to stop the lesson and issue reprimands.

Writing a student's name on the board

"You're here to teach, Mr. Gooch. You must stop telling your students, 'That's for me to know and for you to find out.'"

58 PHI DELTA KAPPAN

would warn the student in a calm, non degrading manner. It would also provide a record-keeping system for the teacher.

Unfortunately, some parents have mis interpreted the use of names and checks on the board as a way of humiliating stu dents. I now suggest that teachers instead write an offending student's name on a clipboard or in the roll book and say to the student, 'You talked out, you disrupt ed the class, you broke a rule. That's a warning. That's a check."

In addition to parents, some teachers have misinterpreted elements of the As sertive Discipline program. The vast ma jority of teachers - my staff and I have probably trained close to 750,000 teach ers - have used the program to dramat ically increase their reliance on positive reinforcement and verbal praise. But a small percentage of teachers have inter preted the program in a negative manner.

There are several reasons for this. First, Assertive Discipline has become a generic term, like Xerox or Kleenex. A number of educators are now conducting training in what they call Assertive Dis cipline without teaching all the competen cies essential to my program. For exam ple, I have heard reports of teachers who were taught that they had only to stand in front of their students, tell them that there were rules and consequences, dis play a chart listing those rules and con sequences, and write the names of mis behaving students on the board. That was it. Those teachers were never introduced to the concept that positive reinforcement is the key to dealing with students. Such programs are not in the best interests of students.

Negative interpretations have also come from burned-out, overwhelmed teachers

who feel they do not get the support that they need from parents or adminis trators and who take out their frustrations on students. Assertive Discipline is not a negative program, but it can be misused by negative teachers. The answer is not to change the program, but to change the teachers. We need to train administra tors, mentor teachers, and staff devel opers to coach negative teachers in the use of positive reinforcement. If these teachers cannot become more positive, they should not be teaching.

POSITIVE DISCIPLINE

I recommend a three-step cycle of be havior management to establish a posi tive discipline system.

Xhenever

teachers want

students to

follow certain

directions, they

must teach the

specific behaviors.

First, whenever teachers want students to follow certain directions, they must teach the specific behaviors. Teachers too often assume that students know how they are expected to behave. Teachers first need to establish specific directions for each activity during the day - lec tures, small-group work, transitions be tween activities, and so forth. For each situation, teachers must determine the ex act behaviors they expect from the stu dents.

For example, teachers may want stu dents to stay in their seats during a lec ture, focusing their eyes on the lecturer, clearing their desks of all materials ex cept paper and pencil, raising their hands when they have questions or comments, and waiting to be called on before speak ing. Once teachers have determined the specific behaviors for each situation, they

must teach the students how to follow the directions. They must first state the direc tions and, with younger students, write the behaviors on the board or on a flip chart. Then they must model the be haviors, ask the students to restate the directions, question the students to make sure they understand the directions, and immediately engage the students in the activity to make sure that they understand the directions.

Second, after teaching the specific directions, teachers - especially at the elementary level - must use positive repetition to reinforce the students when they follow the directions. Typically, teachers give directions to the students and then focus attention only on those stu dents who do not obey. ("Bobby, you didn't go back to your seat. Teddy, what's

wrong with you? Get back to work.") In stead, teachers should focus on those stu dents who do follow the directions, re phrasing the original directions as a posi tive comment. For example, "Jason went back to his seat and got right to work."

Third, if a student is still misbehaving after a teacher has taught specific direc tions and has used positive repetition, only then should the teacher use the nega tive consequences outlined in his or her

Assertive Discipline plan. As a general rule, a teacher shouldn't administer a dis ciplinary consequence to a student until the teacher has reinforced at least two stu dents for the appropriate behavior. Ef fective teachers are always positive first. Focusing on negative behavior teaches students that negative behavior gets at tention, that the teacher is a negative per son, and that the classroom is a negative place.

An effective behavior management pro gram must be built on choice. Students must know beforehand what is expected of them in the classroom, what will hap pen if they choose to behave, and what will happen if they choose not to be have. Students learn self-discipline and responsible behavior by being given clear, consistent choices. They learn that their actions have an impact and that they themselves control the consequences.

I wish teachers did not need to use negative consequences at all. I wish all students came to school motivated to learn. I wish all parents supported teach ers and administrators. But that's not the reality today. Many children do not come to school intrinsically motivated to be have. Their parents have never taken the time or don't have the knowledge or sklfls to teach them how to behave. Given these circumstances, teachers need to set firm and consistent limits in their classrooms. However, those limits must be fair, and the consequences must be seen as out comes of behaviors that students have chosen.

Students need teachers who can create classroom environments in which teach ing and learning can take place. Every student has the right to a learning en vironment that is free from disruption. Students also need teachers who help them learn how to behave appropriately in school. Many students who are catego rized as behavior problems would not be so labeled if their teachers had taught them how to behave appropriately in the classroom and had raised their self esteem.

SEPTEMBER 1989 59

WHY ASSERTIVE DISCIPLINE?

The average teacher never receives in-depth, competency-based training in

managing the behavior of 30 students. No one teaches teachers how to keep students in their seats long enough for teachers to

make good use of the skills they learned in their education classes. In most in stances, behavior management is taught through a smorgasbord approach - a lit tle bit of William Glasser, a little bit of Thomas Gordon, a little bit of Rudolf Dreikurs, a little bit of Lee Canter. The teachers are told to find an approach that

works for them. Such an approach to training teachers

in behavior management is analogous to a swimming class in which nonswimmers are briefly introduced - without practice - to the crawl stroke, the breast stroke, the back stroke, and the side stroke; then they are rowed to the middle of a lake, tossed overboard, and told to swim to shore, using whatever stroke works for them. In effect, we're telling teachers to sink or swim, and too many teachers are sinking.

The lack of ability to manage student behavior is one of the key reasons why beginning teachers drop out of teaching. Teachers must be trained thoroughly in classroom management skills. It is not sufficient for them to know how to teach content. They will never get to the con tent unless they know how to create a positive environment in which students know how to behave.

Assertive Discipline is not a cure-all. It is a starting point. Every teacher should also know how to use counseling skills, how to use group process skills, and how to help students with behavioral deficits learn appropriate classroom behaviors. In addition, classroom management must be part of an educator's continuing pro fessional development. Teachers routine ly attend workshops, enroll in college courses, receive feedback from adminis trators, and take part in regular inservice training to refine their teaching skills. Classroom management skills deserve the same attention. Unfortunately, some edu cators view training in Assertive Dis cipline as a one-shot process; they attend a one-day workshop, and that's supposed to take care of their training needs for the rest of their careers.

One day is not enough. It takes a great deal of effort and continuing training for a teacher to master the skills of class room management. A teacher also needs

A smorgasbord

approach to class

room management

forces teachers

to sink or swim.

Too many sink.

support from the building administrator. Without an administrator backing a teach er's efforts to improve behavior manage ment, without an administrator to coach and clinically supervise a teacher's be havior management skills, that teacher is not going to receive the necessary feedback and assistance to master those skills.

Parental support for teachers' discipli nary efforts is equally important. Many teachers become frustrated and give up

when they don't receive such support. We must train teachers to guarantee the sup port of parents by teaching teachers how to communicate effectively with parents. In teacher ftaining programs, participants are led to believe that today's parents will act as parents did in the past and give absolute support to the school. That is rarely the case. Today's teachers call par ents and are told, "He's your problem at school. You handle it. You're the profes sional. You take care of him. I don't know what to do. Leave me alone."

RESEARCH AND ASSERTIVE DISCIPLINE

Over the last several years, a number of dissertations, master's theses, and re search projects have dealt with Assertive

Discipline. The results have consistent ly shown that teachers dramatically im prove student behavior when they use the skills as prescribed. Teachers who use

Assertive Discipline reduce the frequen cy of disruptive behavior in their class rooms, gready reduce the number of stu dents they refer to administrators, and dramatically increase their students' time on-task.1 Other research has demonstrat ed that student teachers trained in Asser tive Discipline are evaluated by their

master teachers as more effective in

classroom management.2 Research con ducted in school districts in California, Oregon, Ohio, and Arizona has shown that an overwhelming majority of teach ers believe that Assertive Discipline helps to improve the climate in the schools and the behavior of students.3

No one should be surprised that re search has verified the success of the program when teachers use the skills properly. Numerous research studies have shown that teachers need to teach students the specific behaviors that they expect from them. Research also shows that student behavior improves when teachers use positive reinforcement effec tively and that the pairing of positive re inforcement with consistent disciplinary consequences effectively motivates stu dents to behave appropriately.4

Any behavior management program that is taught to teachers today must have a solid foundation in research. Many so called "experts" advocate programs that are based solely on their own opinions regarding what constitutes a proper class room environment. When pressed, many of these experts have no research validat ing their opinions or perceptions, and

many of their programs have never been validated for effectiveness in classrooms.

We can't afford to train educators in pro grams based only on whim or untested theory. We have an obligation to insure that any training program in behavior

management be based solidly on tech niques that have been validated by re search and that have been shown to work in the classroom.

Research has demonstrated that Asser tive Discipline works and that it isn't just a quick-fix solution. In school districts in Lennox, California, and Troy, Ohio, teachers who were trained 10 years ago still use the program effectively.5 The program works because it is based on practices that effective teachers have fol lowed instinctively for a long time. It's not new to have rules in a classroom. It's not new to use positive reinforcement. It's not new to have disciplinary conse quences.

Teachers who are effective year after year take the basic Assertive Discipline competencies and mold them to their in dividual teaching styles. They may stop using certain techniques, such as putting

marbles in ajar or writing names on the board. That's fine. I don't want the lega cy of Assertive Discipline to be - and I don't want teachers to believe tey have to use -names and checks on thie board

60 PHI DELTA KAPPAN

or marbles in a jar. I want teachers to learn that they have to take charge, ex plain their expectations, be positive with students, and consistently employ both positive reinforcement and negative con sequences. These are the skills that form the basis of Assertive Discipline and of any effective program of classroom man agement.

1. Linda H. Mandlebaum et al., "Assertive Dis

cipline: An Effective Behavior Management Pro

gram," Behavioral Disorders Journal, vol. 8,1983,

pp. 258-64; Carl L. Fereira, "A Positive Approach to Assertive Discipline," Martinez (Calif.) Unified School District, ERIC ED 240 058,1983; and Sam

mie McCormack, "Students' Off-Task Behavior and

Assertive Discipline" (Doctoral dissertation, Univer

sity of Oregon, 1985). 2. Susan Smith, The Effects of Assertive Dis

cipline Training on Student Teachers' Self Concept and Classroom Management Skills" (Doctoral dis

sertation, University of South Carolina, 1983). 3. Kenneth L. Moffett et al., "Assertive Discipline," California School Board Journal, June/July/August 1982, pp. 24-27; Mark Y. Swanson, "Assessment

of the Assertive Discipline Program," Compton (Calif.) Unified School District, Spring 1984; "Dis cipline Report," Cartwright (Ariz.) Elementary School District, 10 February 1982; and Confeder ation of Oregon School Administrators, personal letter, 28 April 1980.

4. Helen Hair et al., "Development of Internal

Structure in Elementary Students: A System of

Classroom Management and Class Control," ERIC

ED 189 067, 1980; Edmund Emmer and Carolyn Everston, "Effective Management: At the Begin

ning of the School Year in Junior High Classes," Research and Development Center for Teacher Edu

cation, University of Texas, Austin, 1980; Marcia Broden et al., "Effects of Teacher Attention on At

tending Behavior of Two Boys at Adjacent Desks," Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, vol. 3,1970,

pp. 205-11; HiU Walker et al., The Use of Nor

mative Peer Data as a Standard for Evaluating Treat ment Effects," Journal of Applied Behavior Analy sis, vol. 37,1976, pp. 145-55; Jere Brophy, "Class room Organization and Management," Elementary School Journal, vol. 83, 1983, pp. 265-85; Hill

Walker et al., "Experiments with Response Cost in Playground and Classroom Settings," Center for

Research in Behavioral Education of the Handi

capped, University of Oregon, Eugene, 1977; Thomas McLaughlin and John Malaby, "Reducing and Measuring Inappropriate Verbalizations," Jour

nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, vol. 5,1972, pp. 329-33; Charles Madsen et al., "Rules, Praise, and

Ignoring: Elements of Elementary Classroom Con

trol," Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, vol.

1, 1968, pp. 139-50; Charles Greenwood et al.,

"Group Contingencies for Group Consequences in

Classroom Management: A Further Analysis," Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, vol. 7,1974,

pp. 413-25; and K. Daniel O'Leary et al., "A To

ken Reinforcement Program in a Public School: A

Replication and Systematic Analysis," Journal of

Applied Behavior Analysis, vol. 2,1969, pp. 3-13.

5. Kenneth L. Moffett et al., Training and Coach

ing Beginning Teachers: An Antidote to Reality Shock," Educational Leadership, February 1987,

pp. 34-46; and Bob Murphy, Troy High School: An Assertive Model," Miami Valley Sunday News,

Troy, Ohio, 12 March 1989, p. 1. IB

Save the Bfaby!

A Response to

'Integrating the Children

Of the Second System'

To throw out the baby (by dismantling special education) because the bath water is murky (there are still unresolved problems) would produce unintended results of disastrous proportions, these authors charge in their response to a November Kappan article.

BY GLENN A. VERGASON AND M. L. ANDEREGG

T O SAY THAT we are dis turbed by the attack on spe cial education that appeared in the November 1988 Kap

pan is an understatement.' We do not understand why profession

als in special education are attempting to make major changes in the professional practice of regular education. Moreover, we question why such well-known re searchers as Margaret Wang, Maynard

Reynolds, and Herbert Walberg are so dedicated to dismantling special educa tion. The movement they champion has been given different names - the Regu lar Education Initiative, the Shared Re sponsibility Initiative, the General Edu cation Initiative - but the underlying

message is the same: a group of special educators knows what is best for all kinds of education.

We also question why professionals who are so well-known for their interest in research persist in pursuing a plan of

GLENN A. VERGASON (Metro Atlanta! Georgia State University Chapter) is a pro fessor in the Department of Special Educa tion and coordinator of the Special Education

Administration Program at Georgia State University, Atlanta, where M. L ANDEREGG is a doctoral student in special education.

attack based on research methodology that is so clearly flawed.2 While it is both healthy and helpful to raise questions about educational practices, these re searchers have gone beyond the data to conduct a campaign to change special education in their own image. Their previous articles on this issue 3 and their speeches have prompted one critic to de scribe their efforts as more a "public re lations campaign" than a research ef fort.4 Others have characterized their solutions as "patent medicine."5

One of the premises in the Kappan ar ticle (and elsewhere in the writings of these three educators) is the idea that regular education and special education form separate systems. Our own ex perience and our discussions with teach ers and administrators do not lead us to accept that notion. In fact, the very children that these writers hope to res cue from special education are, by and large, in regular education classes for

most of the school day. Special educa tion is an adaptive support system for the

mildly handicapped; it is not a separate system.

Wang, Reynolds, and Walberg suggest that special education programs are usu ally "pull-out" programs and criticize

SEPTEMBER 1989 61

Article Contentsp. 57p. 58p. 59p. 60p. 61

Issue Table of ContentsThe Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 71, No. 1 (Sep., 1989), pp. 1-96Front MatterThe Editor's PageNo Matter How You Slice It [p. 3-3]

Washington CommentaryThe Clock Is Ticking [pp. 4-5]

Stateline: Entire Kentucky Education System Unconstitutional! [pp. 6-7]Mission Not Accomplished: Education Reform in Retrospect [pp. 8-14]Demilitarizing Public Education: School Reform in the Era of George Bush [pp. 15-18]Reform in Soviet and American Education: Parallels and Contrasts [pp. 19-28]American Textbook Reform: What Can We Learn from the Soviet Experience? [pp. 29-35]A Teacher Development Model for Classroom Management [pp. 36-38]School Order and Safety as Community Issues [pp. 39-40, 55-56]The 21st Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes toward the Public Schools [pp. 41-54]Passing Thoughts: Schools/Prisons Are a Mind of State [p. 55-55]Assertive Discipline: More than Names on the Board and Marbles in a Jar [pp. 57-61]Save the Baby! A Response to 'Integrating the Children of the Second System' [pp. 61-63]A Rebuttal to Vergason and Anderegg: Who Benefits from Segregation and Murky Water? [pp. 64-67]It's Good Score! Just a Bad Grade [pp. 68-71]Point of ViewLet's Again Talk Sense about Our Schools [pp. 72-73]

On Alienation and the ESL Student [pp. 74-75]ResearchEducational Disadvantage: A Threat from Within [pp. 76-77]Listening and Learning [p. 77-77]Keeping Kids in School Should We Try? [pp. 77-79]Models and Learning to Program [p. 79-79]

A Correction: Moving around, Scoring Low [p. 79-79]De JureIs There a Liability Insurance Crisis? [pp. 80-81]

In EuropePrimary Education [pp. 82-83]

PrototypesBlah Na Na! For the Blahs [pp. 84-85]

BooksReview: Two Books of Questionable Value on Partnerships [p. 85-85]Review: A Thorough Analysis of the Politics of Education [pp. 86-87]

Backtalk: Readers Respond to Spring Issues [pp. 87, 90-92, 94, 96]Back Matter